Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification • Hacker News Board

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#381

Post by lrvick » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:00 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #162

lrvick wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to hack the law. Our FOSS code is constitutionally protected free speech and I would defend on those grounds. The technical design of the project just makes it so no one can force changes on the distro unwanted by the maintainer team regardless of any courtroom outcomes. Like, what if someone made a law that said Bitcoin nodes must KYC? They could make the law I guess, and the international network operators…

> Our FOSS code is constitutionally protected free speech and I would defend on those grounds. You have precisely zero additional speech rights as a FOSS project than any other organization has. If "free speech" was a valid defense for you, then Meta would be doing the same. > The technical design of the project just makes it so no one can force changes on the distro unwanted by the maintainer team regardless of any…

Okay well if they want to jail me for being unable to comply with violating the privacy of the users of the Linux distro I work on it. Cool, I guess.

They would sure be wasting a lot of resources and public goodwill with absolutely no positive outcome for their agenda. Which is why I do not think it will actually happen.

But if it does, it does. Not going to live my life in fear, I have more security and privacy tools to ship :)

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#382

Post by lrvick » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:00 AM UTC

tessierashpool wrote: post #298

kube-system wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our FOSS code is constitutionally protected free speech and I would defend on those grounds. You have precisely zero additional speech rights as a FOSS project than any other organization has. If "free speech" was a valid defense for you, then Meta would be doing the same. > The technical design of the project just makes it so no one can force changes on the distro unwanted by the maintainer team regardless of any…

> If "free speech" was a valid defense for you, then Meta would be doing the same. Meta lobbied heavily for this. The fact that they have not decided to use free speech to fight the move that they are lobbying for is not an argument that free speech is irrelevant here. This is not legal advice but a personal request: please do not get your legal advice from Hacker News. Get it from a lawyer.

Meta is a company. I am an individual.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#383

Post by eterm » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:01 AM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #347

eterm wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you, but you have an optimism about the ability for open source maintainers to have achievable political aims, in a way that I haven't seen happen for decades. What your happier future looks like requires both a technical solution, but more importantly political wins to sell that solution as the better one. The current operating systems weighted by users, are entirely under the control of three…

> given the number of stories of parents who seem to hand their children their credit card, then complain about them racking up thousands of dollars on Roblox or whatever Sure, but you hear about those because of how shocking they are to all sensible people. Actually I bet a lot more kids rack up those charges using cards they stole from mom's purse. Same kids will start trying to sneak mom's old iPhone out of the de…

> I just don't accept the absolutist idea that if anything can be gotten around by any means, that means it can't still be sensible policy

Now on that I agree strongly, there is a crowd on here that believe that technical weaknesses defeat political strengths, and focus all their effort into proving a technical workaround only for the political juggernauts to continue crushing their freedoms.

These are arguments which often flow, "This law is impossible to enforce in totality, therefore the law will fail", which fails to understand what law really is, and how much people abide to even bad laws.

I think we disagree on what's actually needed to defeat the increasing centralisation of the internet, I think it really needs a movement to wake people up, it needs skilled political operators, and it needs passionate orators, to spread the message that we're increasingly operating in a controlled space which every year has greater hurdles to communicate outside of the bounds which those who control it allow, rather than the open internet we used to enjoy and need to fight to defend.

And, most importantly, that that fight needs to be political and not technical. Being seduced by the appeal of technical solutions is unhelpful distraction. Cryptocurrency will not keep you free. Duress pins will not keep you free. It is political will that will do that.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#384

Post by lrvick » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:02 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #317

lrvick wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are successful at doing so, then those distribution methods were too brittle. I expect in response one of the maintainers outside US jurisdiction of their own volition publishes via bittorrent, tor hidden services, and embedding blobs in public blockchains with no help from me. Then the problem the legislators sought to solve just got a lot worse, while calling a lot of attention to how little power they actu…

The person you replied to is using "could"/"could not" to mean "would comply with the law"/"would not comply with the law" Nobody here is saying that anyone is going to swoop in and physically prevent this software from being distributed on the internet. > Then the problem the legislators sought to solve just got a lot worse, while calling a lot of attention to how little power they actually have to control decentral…

Agreed. They are never going to actually come for niche Linux distros. All the more reason I am pushing back on all the fear.

The correct response from the Linux community is to say "fuck off", and get back to making their distros more secure, more private, and easier to use.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#385

Post by kube-system » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:03 AM UTC

lrvick wrote: post #381

kube-system wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our FOSS code is constitutionally protected free speech and I would defend on those grounds. You have precisely zero additional speech rights as a FOSS project than any other organization has. If "free speech" was a valid defense for you, then Meta would be doing the same. > The technical design of the project just makes it so no one can force changes on the distro unwanted by the maintainer team regardless of any…

Okay well if they want to jail me for being unable to comply with violating the privacy of the users of the Linux distro I work on it. Cool, I guess. They would sure be wasting a lot of resources and public goodwill with absolutely no positive outcome for their agenda. Which is why I do not think it will actually happen. But if it does, it does. Not going to live my life in fear, I have more security and privacy tool…

I don’t think they’re going to spend any resources on going after you because:

* your project might not even qualify under the text of the law

* even if it did, the number of children using it to access social media is likely zero

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#386

Post by lrvick » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:04 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #167

otterley wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of remedies available to a court with respect to a recalcitrant party, ranging from an injunction to remove your product from the market to fines and imprisonment. Again, speak with your attorney. Do not try to "hack the law" yourself; many who have tried have regretted it later.

> Again, speak with your attorney. Do not try to "hack the law" yourself; many who have tried have regretted it later. Also reach out to the EFF, who may be able to help/advise, especially if you genuinely want to fight this. This is a terrible law. That doesn't mean it's not a law, and courts do not look kindly on people subject to their jurisdiction (which unfortunately often includes state laws to people in other…

If someone is stupid enough to try to target me over my open source Linux contributions, the EFF would be my first call.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#387

Post by kube-system » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:11 AM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #380

kube-system wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that complicated. If there's a law that says "Anyone who distributes X must also Y" and you can't figure out a way to continue distributing X while also doing Y, the way you comply with the law is that you stop distributing X.

"Distributing" is doing a lot of work here. A file hosted on foreign server might functionally be a system to "distribute" that file, but it is doubtful if a US state could prevent it from existing. They could theoretically order US ISP's to cease providing access to said file, but that's a rabbit hole I'm not sure that Illinois or any other state really wants to go down.

Yes, most any law is primary enforced against people within the same legal jurisdiction. It matters less where the server is and more where the relevant people/organizations/assets are.

Major OS providers, including major Linux distributions, are all within reasonable reach of Illinois law.

It’s probably less relevant if you’re a hobbyist working on Hannah Montana Linux on the other side of the planet.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#388

Post by otterley » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:13 AM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #326

otterley wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is you who needs to do your research. That was not PGP. The Bernstein case was about Snuffle. In that very same case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said: "We emphasize the narrowness of our First Amendment holding. We do not hold that all software is expressive. Much of it surely is not. Nor need we resolve whether the challenged regulations constitute content-based restrictions, subject to the strictest cons…

Yes, I mentioned that Bernstein made his own software. But that was in the context of a huge public controversy over encryption regulations, mostly focused on PGP, and after the Bernstein decision, the Clinton administration eased up on export restrictions and moved them to the Commerce department. Junger vs Daley strengthened the Bernstein decision, ruling that all source code is protected speech. https://en.wikiped…

Yes, Junger v. Daley held that source code is speech for the purpose of First Amendment analysis in the Sixth Circuit. (The question has not yet been presented to the Supreme Court.)

But the inquiry doesn't stop there. First Amendment jurisprudence doesn't stop at asking the question "is this speech?". That's just a threshold question. If the answer is "no," then the case is analyzed one way. If the answer is "yes," then the case analyzed a different way. Think of it like a decision step in a flowchart.

Code being treated as speech doesn't automatically mean that software developers can do whatever they want, just like it doesn't mean that people who write, draw, make music, etc. can do whatever they want. It's not the magic unassailable defense you claim it to be. Courts will apply a balancing test to determine whether the Government's interest in prohibiting the speech outweighs the Constitutional interest in protecting it. The answer comes out different ways depending on the facts and the law, which is complicated.

For example, it's unlawful to make and distribute CSAM. It's unlawful to defame someone. It's unlawful to defraud someone. It's unlawful to violate others' copyrights. You have to label food and medicine a certain way. These are all forms of speech, but the courts have held that none of these restrictions (or requirements) violate the First Amendment. And I don't think we'd all be cheering someone on and claiming "code is speech" for someone who writes ransomware or software whose sole purpose is to drain your bank accounts or shut down power plants.

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#389

Post by otterley » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:16 AM UTC

lrvick wrote: post #384

kube-system wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you replied to is using "could"/"could not" to mean "would comply with the law"/"would not comply with the law" Nobody here is saying that anyone is going to swoop in and physically prevent this software from being distributed on the internet. > Then the problem the legislators sought to solve just got a lot worse, while calling a lot of attention to how little power they actually have to control decentral…

Agreed. They are never going to actually come for niche Linux distros. All the more reason I am pushing back on all the fear. The correct response from the Linux community is to say "fuck off", and get back to making their distros more secure, more private, and easier to use.

[flagged]

Re: Illinois just passed a law that puts Linux on the hook for age verification

#390

Post by derangedHorse » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 1:16 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #269

pwg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion. If the intent were to actually protect children, then this would be what was done. "Protect the children" is just a subterfuge to get electorate support for voting for the foundation for a "1984 thought crime" style monitoring…

Do folks realize how many people would need to be a part of this conspiracy to get these laws passed at the state level? Maybe some people actually want to do good and are just misguided. And responding to those people as if they are evil government stooges certainly isn’t going to help them find the light.

> Do folks realize how many people would need to be a part of this conspiracy to get these laws passed at the state level?

Not many.

> Maybe some people actually want to do good and are just misguided

Yes. That's why it doesn't take many to be part of this conspiracy. You can just get people to play a part in the conspiracy by rallying supporters under the guise of good intentions.

> And responding to those people as if they are evil government stooges certainly isn’t going to help them find the light

Most of those people will probably die not finding the light. They are people who won't have to live with the long term consequences. Most of the Illinois House (~70%) is 46+ [1]. The senate statistic is even worse sitting at almost 75% for individuals 46+. If life expectancy in the US is around 80, that means people who are in the first half of their expected life are drastically underrepresented (especially considering Illinois's 46+ demographic only occupies around ~45% [2])

[1] https://cypp.rutgers.edu/age-in-the-2025-illinois-general-as...

[2] https://www.impactdupage.org/demographicdata?id=16&sectionId...